Yes, the Iranian child is subject to / must follow American laws. Dissenting problem is the child is also subject to other foreign powers and the 14th excludes that situation for birthright citizenship
Re: Alito also discusses “Indians”. After the 14th, they were born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction but were not considered citizens. Per the text, Alito asks why not? His answer is because they were subject to a foreign (tribal) power which is consistent with how he thinks it should be. Why apply that standard to Indians but not other foreigners.
Again, I don’t agree. It’s all problematic and more nuanced than Alito presents it.
I wonder if that would imply that undocumented immigrants cannot be charged with criminal offenses? Would the dissenting justices agree on that?
Plus the implication in the dissent that citizenship equals allegiance. There are plenty of refugees in western countries who are there because of their home governments, and likely feel no allegiance to them. Presumably people who invade a capitol building and try to overthrow the duly elected government are not feeling that warm and fuzzy allegiance.
I understood too, the “subject to…” was also to imply that should the USA be invaded, for example, the children of foreign invaders born in occupied territory (i.e. not subject to the jurisdiction) would not be considered citizens. In the middle of a civil war, while France was feeling adventurous in Mexico, this would probably have been a valid concern while writing the amendment.
It is clear that some of the current MAGA judges would had discualified some judges from serving.
The last foreign-born justice was Felix Frankfurter, born in Austria in 1881, according to the story. He came to New York with his family at the age of 12, not knowing a word of English. Those who opposed him did so because he was liberal or Jewish and did not make an issue of his birthplace, Supreme Court historian Mel Urofsky told the NLJ. “He was very gung-ho about America,” Urofsky said of Frankfurter.
Five other justices were foreign-born, according to the NLJ. They are James Wilson (born in Scotland in 1742), James Iredell (1751, England), William Paterson (1745, Ireland), David Brewer (1837, Asia Minor, now Turkey), and George Sutherland (1862, England).
This has always puzzled me, too. Has this apparent disconnect been discussed by anyone, lawyers, commentators, experts? Has it even been raised by politicians?
But the law does not abolish citizenship by descent; just confines it to those with a parent or grandparent born in Italy. Alito may still be covered.
I think key issue is whether the law makes you a citizen automatically, or merely confers an entitlement to become a citizen, but actual citizenship isn’t conferred until the entitlement is exercised by e.g. registering. If the former, Alito could very well be an Italian citizen.
[Moderating]
Since the factual discussion seems to be giving way to political discussion, and since there’s already a P&E thread on this topic, I’ll just close this one.